Letters (Aug. 5)

School board president explains LEAP decision

In response to the recent editorial, it seems that the Las Cruces Public Schools Board of Education is LEAPing back and forth between canceling and now reinstating the program.

It may seem that the board was trying to fix the situation in a haphazard way. From the very beginning of this year, the board was inundated with complaints from staff, principals and parents as to the quality and safety of the Leading Edge Accelerated Program.

We each sat and listened to concerns and complaints and we knew that the program could not continue in its current state. The board sought legal advice, and was told that we had the responsibility to close the program, if it was not functioning correctly.

As we had heard, there was a lack of discipline, to the point of concern by the parents for the safety of their children. There were three safety violations that were not handled appropriately and would probably have escalated.

Principals would complain that students they recommended were not accepted by administration. There have been additional complaints of English Language Learners or students with Individualized Education Plans being kept out.

The school population started at about 50 students and was expected to grow but never did. There was an incredible amount of technology at the school which was rarely used by the students or staff.

So what to do? It pained us to not be able to address immediate concerns of the parents who presented themselves to the board, asking to save the program. We closed the program, hoping to resolve its issues and then with time, offer a new and improved version of LEAP, under new leadership.

We will be hearing the superintendent's plan for LEAP today. The board commits itself to all programs that serve our students well.

Because solar owners buy less electricity after installing solar panels, EPE wants to compensate itself for the loss by charging us a special rate, ostensibly to cover the cost of maintaining its grid.

But the simple EPE underground wire attached to my solar-equipped house adds virtually nothing to EPE's costs, and certainly costs no more than identical wires attached to non-solar houses.

And EPE not only sends electricity through my wire, EPE receives environmentally clean electricity through it from my solar panels. My solar production reduces EPE's need to build more infrastructure to cover peak demand on hot sunny days. Further, I pay triple for electricity that I do buy compared to what EPE pays me for what I send them. I also pay the monthly customer fee.

Could FEDEX or UPS get away with charging me a special base rate to cover the cost of their infrastructure — trucks, planes, and hubs — if I send or receive fewer or no packages? Could Southwest Airlines charge me to compensate for me buying fewer or no tickets?

EPE wants us to pay for its equipment plus a whopping 9 percent return on investment.

If EPE, a monopoly, gets its costs covered by us via PRC rate orders, and incurs little risk, does it deserve a ROI, or money for stockholder dividends?

Further, if customers ultimately pay for the EPE infrastructure, should they own it?

Maybe the PRC should require EPE to operate with little or no profit, like credit unions, or the nonprofit Las Cruces water and gas utilities.

William J. Beerman, Las Cruces

New Mexico has five sanctuary counties

I beg to differ with the Sound Off comment on July 29, which chastises Gov. Susana Martinez for not doing or saying anything about "the three sanctuary cities in New Mexico."

I disagree with there being only three sanctuary cities.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies (http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map) New Mexico has five counties — Luna, Dona Ana, Otero, Bernalillo and Santa Fe — and two cities — San Miguel and Taos — that by government action have decisions on record that they will not honor various Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requirements.

Yes, I agree Governor Martinez and the Legislature should do something about the sanctuaries.